Who Was Jesus, Really??

I think we can all agree he most likely wasn't the son of God.
I'm reading C.S. Lewis now, and his claim that Jesus was "Lord, Liar or Lunatic" seems like a false dilemma. Couldn't he be deluded, and honestly think he was because his followers insisted? Is there historical evidence he ever claimed to be God in the first place?

Posts about your opinion on Jesus's legitimacy/character as well as reading material on the subject would be greatly appreciated.

Replies to This Discussion

According to biblical scholars (non-christians included) historical Jesus existed. Details/sources/evidence on his life and actions and character are sketchy and will always be extremely vague and almost meaningless. It's probably a waste of time to research just what kind of guy Jesus was.

However it is not at all a waste of time to watch "The life of Brian" which paints an extremely speculative (and absurd) portrait of Jesus ... only a million times more believable than St. Johns gospel.

Depends on if you want to assign any essential historical accuracy to the gospels. If you do, then fabrication and exaggeration are ruled out, and Lewis also makes a pretty good case that liar and lunatic should be ruled out as well. So he's either the Son of God or someone who really shouldn't be all that noteworthy, in which case, why is everyone on this planet so curious about him?

Jesus was a Jewish Zealot who lived under Roman occupation. He opposed Roman rule and those Jews who sympathized and colluded with them like the priests and money changers at the temple. He was executed by Rome for sedition. I think that much is clear from all the evidence that we have. I would recommend the book Zealot by Reza Aslan. It's a great read.

There are many references to Sons of God who weren't *literal* sons of god in the OT

Someone probably called Jesus a (non-literal) Son of God...some Greeks overheard it and took it literally. And a son of a god to them was himself divine...think Herakles. So Jesus became the *literal* son of god to his gentile followers.

Personally I don't believe he existed based on the lack of credible evidence, plus the fact there are no records of him in the Roman record... no documentation, nothing. This at a time when he was supposed to be the talk of the town. Add to this the fact that Nazareth never existed at the supposed time of Jesus and the whole thing smells of bullshit.

(Not having watched the video). Your argument doesn't take into account the possibility that a perfectly ordinary street corner preacher got his ass executed, and then after his death a huge legend got built up around him. The records wouldn't show him existing because he'd be too small potatoes to be worth recording, at the time they nailed him up.

I know the prevailing opinion is that a historical Jesus existed. Historian Richard Carrier makes a very interesting case for why he does not believe this. (Edit: I realize this has already been posted.) I recommend watching the whole lecture, I found it extremely interesting.

Carrier says that around the alleged time of Jesus, there was a trend of new religions which would mix Greek philosophy with some other culture. He states that the story of Jesus is a mix of Greek and Jewish thought in a way that is very similar to other mixing of Greek and Egyptian, Greek and . There was also a trend of dying and rising gods who gave salvation by being resurrected. (At about 13 minutes.)